Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
You are seriously arguing that the corruption in our police system means there is no protection? This is objectively false.I would trust an officer over Ultragagginggunnut any day of the week.
(Emphasis mine)
You identified two possible “protectors”. Your argument failed to consider yourself as a third option. That oversight is a fundamental flaw in your initial argument.
You are not a “prisoner”. You are the person in the best position to protect you. That fact is not represented in your initial argument.
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the only choices.
In your entire comment, you failed to realize that “Doomsider” is a perfectly viable option.
With “Doomsider” being an option for you, “officer” should be considered a distant second.
When you actually want to respond to what I said I will be waiting.
Certainly. Thank you for your patience, and for the opportunity for discussion.
I respectfully and summarily reject the underlying premise of what you were saying. Your comment did not consider that you are the person best capable of providing your own “protection”.
I submit that the regulatory environment needs to recognize and respect that fact.
Still waiting
What are you waiting for? I have responded twice before this comment. Your comment is premised on a false dichotomy. When we eliminate that premise, the remainder of your comment doesn’t make much sense.
One route forward: You could support your position on a different premise. Another route: You could abandon your previous position and adopt a new one. I eagerly await your choice.
Nice try, let me turn on my Rivalarrival translator: Ah yes, it is coming in clear now. You did not like what I said but you have no rebuttal so you hyper focused on one thing. You invented a false premise and remembered to project that like any good bullshitter.
Still waiting.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but none of what you’re saying in any way addresses my point: your argument is fundamentally based on the aforementioned false dichotomy. You are the most reliable protector of you. Nobody has a greater motivation to protect you than you. Regulation should recognize that fact.
I understand it may seem like I am “hyper focused” on this rebuttal to your argument, but that is only because you have asked for further response, without actually addressing my initial argument. You’ve presented no new arguments for me to consider.
Most reliable protector? What kind of word salad AI bullshit are you trying to feed me.
Still waiting.
I utilized conjugations of your own words:
(Emphasis mine)
You identified two possible “protectors”. Your argument failed to consider yourself as a third option. That oversight is a fundamental flaw in your initial argument.
You are not a “prisoner”. You are the person in the best position to protect you. That fact is not represented in your initial argument.